science

That is exactly what the "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" means: that our theories require it to exist to explain our observations, but we have no way to detect it, ergo it is "dark".

It's like the infamous cosmological constant that Einstein initially added to the theory of relativity. Just like the "dark" things it had no physical analogue, and was there so that his equations held for a universe of constant size. When Hubble demonstrated that (contrary to the belief at the time) the universe was expanding the cosmological constant was no longer needed.

It is entirely possible that a new theory will explain what the dark stuff is and we will be able to remove those terms from the equations that need them in order to explain our observations. It is possible that we will find some kind of actual matter that interacts with the gravitational force but not the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces, which I think is what would be needed for a "dark matter particle".

In my personal opinion, the best explanation I've heard is that the error terms are best explained by the expansion of space itself. Specifically, we have some very recent evidence that the expansion of space isn't uniform, and that might explain a significant amount of the dark energy. PBS Space Time does a good job with relevant videos and keeping up with the science.

No physicist will tell you that we know what "dark matter" or "dark energy" is, because we don't. I think most would agree with you that ultimately we will find multiple explanations that add up to "dark matter + dark energy".

I think the one thing that I disagree with you on is that science is "bogged down" with theories and maybes. The theories and maybes are where the most exciting research is happening!

Science isn't the body of knowledge that results from experimentation; it's the cycle of theory and experimentation that generates new knowledge. We don't remember the hundreds and hundreds of false theories that had to be argued about and discarded to get to relativity or quantum theory. Today we only read the papers that were proven right in hindsight. If you look at "dark matter/energy" science of today we're in that churn, so it looks different. In time, all these disproved theories will be forgotten, too.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are the "errors in the prediction of Mercury's orbit" (relativity) or "errors in the predictions of black-body radiation" (quantum) of our time.

I think it sits in a place similar to where "the ether" used to sit. Similar because lots of ppl take that it is an actual known thing. Dissimilar b/c those who do work around it understand it's more like, as you've found, stuff implied from all we've learned regarding physics to date. Without it the math kinda falls apart.

Then you might ask "well, could the math we use now actually be wrong?" I think the answer to that comes back around to "but the math we do have actually works really well; throwing that out is very hard to do".

Personally I think it needs new naming; calling it anything other than a question adds bias that may end up wasting time.

Dark Matter is just a placeholder AFAIK until something more proven comes along. It explains why galaxies hold together, but it's just a stand-in for the time being.

I feel a lot of science has bogged it’s self down with theory and maybes for decades and decades

I mean, scientifically there's a huge difference between the two. For example, the theory of gravity is so well-tested and supported that it's about as close to proven as can be. A "maybe" isn't even a hypothesis yet, but it's perhaps an intermediate step. Maybes are good, because they represent relevant scientists coming up with ideas to help explain reality, which can then fade away or solidify as things unwind. Without maybes you don't get well-supported theories... which is like science not able to get anywhere.

dark matter could be a lot of things. its a known x factor and it does not necessarily mean its definately some kind of esoteric matter. That is why they work to detect it to narrow down what it could be. I mean I have not looked at the most up to date stuff and honestly don't care to atm. its a complicated topic. would likely look for a pbs space time if anything. there are lots of things like that when you get to the edges.

Saying "just dark matter" might be missing what could be a whole category of types of objects and particles. The wiki for dark matter is rather long and detailed. There isn't one type, that's part of the problem of seeing unexplained influences that need certain properties but by principle is hard to detect normally.

In short, something is going on in the observed evidence of what is termed as dark matter. Normal matter we're familiar with doesn't work. So we make models of things it might be and try to verify them.

There are some particles that don’t interact via the electromagnetic force. There are some particles that don’t interact via the strong force. And there are some particles that don’t interact via the weak force. All the particles we know, we’ve detected because they interact via at least one of those forces—but there’s no rule that says a particle must interact with any of them.

Why should we assume that every particle in existence must be conveniently detectable? It’s like a blind person assuming nothing can exist unless it makes a noise.

im convinced its some kind of black hole rather than an unknown, exotic form of matter